Turkey’s extensive expansion into Africa through military, trade, Islamic diplomacy, and education is, according to some analysts, undermining U.S. objectives as Ankara takes advantage of wars and conflicts across the continent.
Experts assert that Turkey’s military sales seem driven by profit maximization, with little concern for how the weapons affect the balance of power, especially in jihadist regions like the Sahel.
Recently, numerous reports have alleged that Turkish companies have sold [weapons] to both parties in the three-year-long [conflict].
“Turkey is truly exploiting all these conflicts in Sudan, Ethiopia, and Somalia to bolster its military presence and diplomatic and economic involvement,” Turkey analyst Gönül Tol stated at an American Enterprise Institute seminar in Washington last week. Tol, who serves as founding director of the Middle East Institute’s Turkey program, further noted that the nation is “among the very top weapons suppliers to Africa. Therefore, more chaos will only serve to strengthen Erdogan’s position.”
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced in October that total trade volume with Africa has surged from $5.4 billion in 2003 to $41 billion in 2024. Addressing a business and economic forum in Istanbul, he stated that the state-supported carrier Turkish Airlines is essentially paving the way [into Africa] for Turkish firms, currently serving 64 African destinations.
Erdogan told the forum that over the last twenty years, “we have developed our relationships hand in hand, shoulder to shoulder, and most crucially, heart-to-heart, to an unimaginable level.”
Selling drones to Sudan’s warring factions would only extend the conflict, an action that directly contradicts U.S. policy. Just last month, a State Department spokesperson informed Digital that “the U.S. is collaborating with allies and other partners to halt external military support to the parties, which is exacerbating the violence.”
“Turkish drones, promoted as affordable and politically convenient alternatives to American or European systems, have spread throughout African conflict zones,” said Mariam Wahba, research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, in an interview with Digital.
“Reports that Turkish companies provided drones to both the Sudanese (government) Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces (the opposing militia in the conflict) highlight Ankara’s transactional approach: securing access and influence outweighs concerns for stability, civilian protection, or alignment with Western policy goals,” she stated.
In a 2025 FDD report, Sinan Siddi, senior fellow and director of the organization’s Turkey Program, wrote, “The agreement between Baykar and SAF is valued at $120 million, leading to the sale of six TB2 drones, three ground control stations, and 600 warheads.” Siddi asserted that the transaction occurred after the U.S. imposed sanctions on such sales.
While Turkish drones are also alleged to have been sold to Sudan’s RSF militia, the company reportedly involved has publicly denied conducting such a sale. The company did not reply to Digital’s request for comment.
When Digital asked a State Department spokesperson about the allegations, the response was, “We refer you to the Government of Turkey for comment on reports concerning any Turkish companies operating in Sudan.”
Digital contacted the [entity] but received no response.
The TB2 drone allegedly sold to the Sudanese government is manufactured by a company reportedly owned by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s son-in-law. Experts state the TB2 costs one-sixth as much as a U.S. Reaper drone. Digital reached out to the company but received no reply.
The U.S. Africa Command’s Africa Defense Forum recently reported that it “typically costs between $2 million and $5 million per aircraft, though complete system packages—including ground control stations, communication systems, and training—often cost substantially more, sometimes reaching $5–$15 million per system depending on the contract. The TB2 is acknowledged for its high cost-efficiency, with operational expenses estimated at just a few hundred dollars per hour.”
Specifically in Africa’s Sahel region, FDD’s Wahba asserted that Turkey is attempting to revive the principles of its Ottoman Empire, which governed for centuries and fostered a culture of establishing caliphates—regions where Islamic law is strictly enforced.
Wahba stated, “Overall, this is a concerning development that threatens to undermine U.S. interests. In addition to supporting Islamist movements such as Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood—which does not reflect well on its ideological orientation—Ankara is pursuing a neo-Ottoman [vision] that is already materializing across parts of Africa.”
“Turkey’s arms sales across Africa are best understood,” FDD’s Siddi told Digital, “not as spontaneous commercial deals, but as a calculated strategy to broaden Ankara’s political, military, and economic presence on a continent that is increasingly being contested by global and middle powers.”
He explained, “By exporting drones, small arms, and security services to fragile states like Sudan… the Erdogan administration positions Turkey as a low-cost, low-conditionality alternative to Western partners, while concurrently opening new markets for its rapidly expanding defense industry. These weapons transfers are intended to acquire diplomatic leverage, secure access to ports, bases, and contracts, and foster client relationships with regimes and militias that can further Turkey’s regional ambitions.”
The number of embassies Turkey operates in Africa has soared from 12 in 2002 to 44 today. Wahba noted that the 64 African destinations served by Turkish Airlines serves as a useful indicator. “As a state-supported carrier, its rapid expansion of direct routes to African capitals reflects Turkey’s diplomatic and security priorities. The airline functionas a soft-power and access facilitator for Ankara’s broader agenda.”
Wahba argued that all of this should concern Washington, “because Ankara’s model increasingly competes with, and in many instances directly undermines, U.S. priorities regarding conflict mitigation and stability.”